[Solo ... Team ... how much of both?]

There is a big difference between people who interact with other players from those that just want to build in seclusion and not have to deal with other players ever.

 

Someone who makes things to sell on the market is different than the person who wants OP protections for themselves because they want to build alone and never worry about someone griefing them.

 

Sure flying around by yourself to populated places is one thing, it's a wholly different topic to go a step further and want to be able to do everything by yourself without ever seeing another person.

 

The game should not tailor to people who never want to deal with pvp and don't want to put the effort into defending themselves appropriately.

 

The same goes for survival mechanics. One of the big gripes against survival mechanics was how it would affect solo players. That's partly why the food and survival thread was overwhelmingly negative.

 

It is going to be a multiplayer game, that's the whole point. There should be disincentivesent for trying to do everything yourself. Whether it is building a space ship, or trying to fly a giant ship by yourself.

 

Too many people who want battleships all to themselves with this idea that they can just code (in Lua no less) away the need for crews and other players. I've heard countless times people talking about automating combat drones and just trying to run massive fleets by themselves.

 

I am entirely against the concept of running massive fleets by yourself. It will cheapen the whole experience for everyone if that ends up being the way battles are fought, instead of crews in ships and manned fighter craft.

 

When it comes to solo fleets. Just say no.

People who wish to never interact with others in an MMO is exceedingly few.

Lots of people love to solo in games - rather than adventure in a group. Just because they don't want to form formal groups, doesn't mean soloers never want to interact with each other.

 

All kinds of players like to play MMOs. If an MMO wishes to be successful, the devs need to support a wide variety of playstyles rather than cater to just one. The DU devs aren't planning to cater to people who never want to PvP. They are planning to provide opportunities for players to create safe zones that are protected from PvP combat. Because the devs aren't planning to to cater to players who always want to PvP.

 

I dunno about disincentives, but it will already be extremely challenging to build multi-crew ships by yourself. As far as I know, it won't be possible for one player to man all the stations on a multi-crew ship. Should be possible to pilot a multi-crew ship solo. That doesn't mean one player will be able to defend and attack while piloting a multi-crew ship.

People can talk all they wish about wanting to running a massive fleet by themselves - doesn't mean it will be possible.

 

IIRC, DU will have some survival mechanics, they just won't have the level of impact as the survival mechanics in a game like H1Z1.

[No Man's Sky gameplay vids - **NMS spoilers**]

Is that even possible ? I am 99% certain it is not since the game has no netcode that I am aware of.

 

NMS is only pushing whatever you are naming, be it a planet or a lifeform... no actual multiplayer in the sense of "oh I can see you"

You will never see another player in front of you, even if he is theoretically standing in front of you from his point of view.

 

Every player is in a solo instance with a common item/name database.

Exactly like the "solo play" in Elite Dangerous.

 

I am pretty sure the confusion suit them (sony and NMS dev) since a lot of ppl will buy out of mere HYPE and not even bother to check deeper.

 

This is why I think this game is a total cashbait.

This is why I think DU has potential to be greater than NMS in every single way beside the "tamagochi" part.

 

Is that even possible ? I am 99% certain it is not since the game has no netcode that I am aware of.

 

NMS is only pushing whatever you are naming, be it a planet or a lifeform... no actual multiplayer in the sense of "oh I can see you"

You will never see another player in front of you, even if he is theoretically standing in front of you from his point of view.

 

Every player is in a solo instance with a common item/name database.

Exactly like the "solo play" in Elite Dangerous.

 

I am pretty sure the confusion suit them (sony and NMS dev) since a lot of ppl will buy out of mere HYPE and not even bother to check deeper.

 

This is why I think this game is a total cashbait.

This is why I think DU has potential to be greater than NMS in every single way beside the "tamagochi" part.

You are misinformed, my friend.

Yes, it is possible to interact with 50+ other players - if you end up in the same place.

The likely hood of bumping into another player is low. 18 quintillion planets in the universe.

We all start in the same galaxy, but that's still billions of planets in a galaxy and only a few hundred thousand players.

Even if we randomly end up on the same planet, we may not realize it. 

But, it should be easier to coordinate reaching the same planet once we reach the center. And once we are in proximity we will automatically join the same "lobby" and be able to play with each other.

 

It's not exactly like the solo play in Elite Dangerous if ED doesn't allow multiplayer.

NMS doesn't really want 100s of players playing in the same space. They especially don't want 1K players playing in the same space.

It's best not to think of NMS as a multiplayer game because the chances of finding other players is quite low.

But if you do come in close enough proximity to other players, you will automatically join the same instance.

[No Man's Sky gameplay vids - **NMS spoilers**]

Problem with allowing players to name planets/solar systems - especially in an MMO - is you come across the abuse of said system. I would be all for it personally, but only if there was a report feature if you come across an inappropriate name. Even then, that would put more of a work load on the NQ staff. It'd be a neat feature, but I can settle for randomly generated names as well.

That doesn't bother me. If I run across names I don't like, there are 100s of millions of other stars and billions and billions of other planets I can explore.

Easy enough to ignore the names I don't like.

[No Man's Sky gameplay vids - **NMS spoilers**]

I've watched 3 or more different people stream NMS - at least 10 hours of footage.

 

1: Daymeeuhn has an incomplete build - there is a significant update for the 1st day patch.

2: Daymeeuhn used the free fuel he found on the space stations to reach the center of the galaxy as quickly as he did. That is most likely an exploit rather than intended gameplay.

3: Many of the bugs Daymeeuhn initially reported were due to having an incomplete build and/or to his ineptitude playing the game. Other people playing the game (like keng01, who bought his copy from Wal-Mart rather than from ebay) didn't have the same bugs and Daymeeuhn recanted some of his bugs after reaching the center and paying more attention to how the game was intended to be played.

4: Daymeeuhn assumes that his experience is definitive gameplay - that because he reached the center of the galaxy and doesn't see evidence of a center of the universe, that there is no center of the universe to be reached. But, we still have that update that's added weeks worth of development, even on top of the Wal-Mart build.

5. To me, Daymeeuhn's gameplay experience -and his conclusions about the game- are unreliable. I prefer the vids from kengi01 and SaberJudo.

6: All of it looks fun though. Whatever is at the center wasn't necessarily the primary draw for me in any case. What inspires me is learning alien languages while exploring and cataloging the creatures found on strange new worlds - to boldly go where no person has gone before.

7: Reaching the center of the galaxy quickly just makes it easier to work towards finding your friends and coordinating multiplay.

[Balancing for different player types.]

"Happen on its own" is the same thing as "will occur organically".

 

Playstyle segregation is not really a factor of "game balance".

The balance that DU will provide is the mechanisms that allow players to control both the creation and the destruction of safe zones.

Since both solo players and group players can manipulate voxels and craft constructs - the game is inherently balanced in that regard.

The players will decide the balance of playstyles and how and where they congregate.

 

Call of Duty has forced segregation - Campaign missions are completely separate from Multiplayer missions. That's like having PvE servers that are separate from PvP servers in an MMO. We need to move away from that.

It should be possible for our characters to seamlessly move between playstyle areas as the mood strikes: a completely shared universe.

Conflicts among the playstyles are fine as long as players also have sufficient means to construct safe zones.

The balance, there, being that it shouldn't be too easy for players to make the entire universe a safe zone.

 

If you don't like socializing with hardcores, casuals, n00bs, veterans, whatever... don't socialize with them.

Hardcoded mechanics that force segregation -making it impossible for the various playstyles to freely interact- needs to be obsolete for modern MMOs.

[Over mining causing ugly planets?]

I'm hoping worlds will eventually begin to look like swiss-cheese, after we deplete them of resources... that will motivate players to move to new worlds.

And ensures that the game does not become stagnant.

Hopefully, we would also later discover that NPC factions, perhaps like the Borg, have terraformed and assimilated those abandoned worlds into there empire(s), thereby providing reasons for humanity to return for new adventures.

[Balancing for different player types.]

Safe zones won't be everywhere. 

The player-created safe zones will have to be maintained - which provides opportunity for indirect PvP conflict.

 

Players will PvE in an Arkified zone via deconstructing the environment and creating constructs.

 

I don't think I said anything about giant-sized machines. I suggested that once a planet-sized bubble territory is activated, we will be able to use permissions to flag responses to designated enemies. Has nothing to do with Lua scripting.

 

Safe zone isn't really an "unlock for a faction". Players will be able to take measures to activate safe zones - that's not necessarily faction-related.

The devs have already stated that other players will have the potential to de-activate the safety mechanisms. That's why it's elegant.

[Balancing for different player types.]

1 - 3 is just abstract game design nonsense that I believe apply to every MMO.

4 is how I believe they can be realised in DU.

and 5 is basic idea summed up.

I don't agree that those gameplay designs apply to every MMO - they do apply to MMOs designed prior to 2012.

 

 

 

EDIT2: player segregation is unavoidable in game with any variety, this is just how world works. Forget MMOs, let's look at Call of Duty. There are players that play only campaign and never multiplayer. There are players that play hardcore multiplayer only. Those players will never share gameplay experience. And there are players that play casual multiplayer. Put them together with hardcore guys, and you get frustration to both.

Forced segregation, like separate servers or instance also cause frustration.

Arkification is an elegant solution to PvE vs PvP combat. Voxels and the ability for players to create their own interactive content will resolve solo vs group frustrations.

[Balancing for different player types.]

this part stood out to me. While we will have PVE and PVP focused players. I feel it worth pointing out that this game doesn't have any npcs in a traditional sense. maybe animals. In reality I feel that PVE is just another form of PVP in this game. You may not be fighting a "physical" battle with someone but you are still fighting. Against other gather types for a resource or against other orgs or even amongst other members of your org for a better political standing

DU has alien ruins - we can expect to encounter citizens of those alien civilizations at some point.

We won't have any NPCs at Alpha. But, expect intelligent NPCs to be encountered at some point - may take a year or two.

 

PvE will literally be playing against the environment for the most part - that won't necessarily entail fighting animals.

It's not really that PvE is another form of PvP, rather it will be that PvP will be split between direct PvP combat and indirect PvP conflict.

Conflict doen't necessarily entail fighting - may not even entail competition.

And it will be possible to become remote hermits who encounter no player competition at all.

[Balancing for different player types.]

Solo outlook on the other hand does not enjoy mixing player-communication with gameplay.

1: This a poor description of the solo outlook. Solo simply refers to players who don't like to rely primarily on a group to accomplish game objectives. Solo players may -and often do- enjoy communicating with and interacting with other players.

Soloers are especially unlikely to join a group for combat purposes.

 

 

 

In short, what I call for is segregation of player base based on preferences. Players should be given an option of playing safe or risky. Players should be given an option of playing smart or easy. Risky or less profitable. Solo or group. PvE or PvP. And in every case gameplay should accommodate them. Building should be a right, not a privilege. As should be attacking structures. Solos should be protected from group abuse. Groups should be protected from solo trolling. The gamedesign grail lies not in making a single person dream game, but making a dream game of every player.

The segregation we will have will rely on Arkification.

We start the game in an area that is immune to PvP combat - and players will have opportunities to create more areas that are immune to PvP combat.

That allows the possibility for everyone to migrate to areas of interest according to their mood. And also motivates players to actively support their interests - either by creating or protecting safe zones or by taking control of safe zones.

 

Solo vs group will occur organically since players can create their own content and decide for themselves whether their goals can be achieved solo or with a group.

I'm not really sure what "group abuse" means, but individual players can create their own safe havens from groups - whether that's an underground lair, a stealth scout ship or a personal lab on a multi-crew ship.

[Planetary defenses?]

Planet protection seems like a logical extension of Arkificarion mechanics and "bubble" territories.

Once a bubble territory covers a planet, it should be possible to flag auto-detection of enemies via permissions.

Primary impediment at the moment is the code for ground-to-space attacks... but the devs have that on their wish

Iist.

[Currency name?]

Currency in and of itself is still bartering, if its looked at objectively. We all agree with a piece of paper or metal that looks a specific way and is comprised of certain materials has a specific value. Bartering in its truest form.

 

Go to the grocery store for a gallon (yes I know, Imperal..yuck) of milk and you pay with three small sheets of paper with a certain picture on them - three one dollar bills - or you might pay with one small sheet of paper with a different person's picture on it - a five dollar bill - and get two sheets back with the first guy's head, and your gallon of milk...because the second sheet is deemed of more value than the first.

 

And before someone with a financial background like myself says 'that is FAR too simplistic!!!', this is very true...but its a minor argument for a minor point...bartering is bartering, currency or not.

Barter: exchange (goods or services) for other goods or services without using money.

[Newcomer to the Universe.]

Welcome!

[THIS is what I WANTED]

NMS is great for solo explorers, yeah... But, I do wish we had more opportunities to hang out there with other players.

I'd need both NMS and DU in the same game to really feel complete.

[Dual vs. no mans sky]

Almost two sides of the same coin for me.

I wish DU and NMS shared the same universe.

[Let's get some silly ideas going? :P]

I say we just rename the game to COPS.

[Ship Titles/Classes]

That's all fine and dandy but not everyone has a knack for military sci-fi, or military terminologies at all. People will start naming ships like "Super-star destroyer Omgatron Class Dreadnought" and the whole scheme will go back to IDing a ship by its mass and weaponry. :V

More to the point, not everyone is interested in "military sci-fi" - not all explorers and traders in DU will be military... in fact, not all fighters in DU will be "military".

[Ship Titles/Classes]

The IFF registration protocol I have in mind takes into account :

1) A licensed ship's mass and cargo. If it doesn't fall into a certain range of mass on its cargo, it is dubbed as "False" by the docking A.I. denying it permission. So, having stolen a freighter's IFF and loading it to your copy of its image and having a boarding party on board your covert vessel, is not going to be that simple. You would need materials that are five times as heavy on your "freighter" ship to reach the assumed cargo mass it can have for the landing A.I. to give it permit to land AND for the boarding party to be housed in it. 

2) A code a pllot has to manually input for the A.I. to identify him as a valid, licensed trader by any faction that can afford such a system. This can be accomplished by LUA and an in-game IFF module in conjuction with a scanner one.

3) The final line of defense. A player acting as Overseer. Such a ship as a freighter would be employeed by a good and reliable trader, so an Overseer would have the access to a voice-to-voice chat, perhaps, if the game's client is stable enough, with an in-game VOIP.

If an infiltrator manages to alter your DPUs protocols, that's a gameplay mechanic as well, perhaps with access to a device that can let an unauthorised person to interact with a DPU, to in which case, get a scanner area that reads a players inventory and searches for said items.

If the inside man is a person with clearence to interact with your DPUs without needing a device. Then... go to Infowars.

Yeah, that's all well and good for docking, but...

I doubt a battlecruiser cares about docking. They'll just a blow a hole in ships and board.

More about destroying ships than overriding permissions.

But, that's a derail from names of ships based on perceived type.

[Ship Titles/Classes]

Interesting.

A freighter could have the same size and shape as a battlecruiser - it's a voxel game with players crafting the ships.

A freighter could even have the same weapons as a battlecruiser.

We don't know whether shields will be armor plating or force-fields.

A primary difference between a freighter and a battlecruiser will be the instruments/control screens and the spaces that act as cargo holds.

Looking forward to seeing what players actually do.

 

One class of ship in BSG is luxury liner. I can imagine some people may want to disguise a battlecruiser to look have the same shape and size as a popular luxury liner... or freighter.

 

To me, the list of ship classes is primarily to have common terminology for trade.

The current list is a bit too military for my tastes.

I'd prefer to draw from other cultures - "Kayak" for a solo explorer ship. "Atsá" for a solo fighter ship.

But, these differences can become how we differentiate factions.

[Community portal feedback]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to more info we can use to RP lore for Alpha.

We have a tiny bit of info regarding what we might do in Alpha as individuals, but no idea of what we might be able to do as organizations on the same Arkship.

[Ship Titles/Classes]

Interesting idea.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Star Trek and Battlestar Gallactica.

But, I look forward to seeing what the devs come up with.

[THIS is what I WANTED]

Why waste time trying to understand Bluedrake's rants??

I hope to enjoy NMS - for very different reasons than DU.

[skill/level caps?]

Hopefully we will have relatively shallow level caps, but a wide variety of skills.

[Suggestion Please do not use a EVE lock on weapon system]

That tweet says "target and lock system"; not tab-target.

I think we're going to want to have some manual targeting that locks.

That way we're able to get strategic instructions for the crew as directed by a captain.

Which doesn't mean tab-target will not be an option - but, it may not be the only option.

 

FPS style targeting won't be an option, though.

[How far can empires expand till they colapse and if there are possible ways to prevent such things in DUAL.]

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/296-devblog-territory-control/

 

Now, a few words about war. You can get control over a territory by "convincing" its owner or administrator to give a delegation to you, or, more traditionally, you can enter it, find the territory unit, destroy it and plant your own, or simply hack it. Expect it to be well hidden and well defended. Territory Units can also be grouped into centralized territory units: getting access to those can grant you control over several tiles at the same time, but of course they will be harder to conquer. Setting up a territory unit can take up to 24 hours, so the process of changing tile ownership is not an easy matter. By default, all delegations will be preserved in case of a change of ownership (which can also happen peacefully via selling), so you need to review the status to decide if you want to keep or break previous delegations. Delegations, like power granting, can come with warranties, so be careful of the price to pay before revoking past commitments.